dilemma: 300mm f/4L, IS or no IS?

[brent chadwell]

I love my 70-200mm f/4L, and since most telephoto shots are taken

outside, I don't want the extra weight on my shoulder of the f/2.8

version. However, I have heard from various sources that the non-IS

outperforms the IS version in terms of image quality. I have several

tripods and a monopod, and I don't mind using them, and I would rather

save the weight and not get IS. I know IS can be a large benefit, but

do you guys think it's worth it, or should I use that extra cash to

get the 1.4x teleconverter? BTW I shoot 99% percent film (1n and elan

7), and don't touch up my pictures in PS. Thanks for your help.

[lovcom_photo]

Brent, I assure you that the added weight of IS is much less hassle then totting around a tripod, to be sure.

 

The non-IS version is slightly ever so sharper but 99 times out of 100 one cannot tell the difference...unless you pixel peep at 100%, and even then you would most often not see the difference.

 

I had both lenses, even the F4 version before those.

 

First I got the f4, went cheap...great lens, but it was a mistake as I really needed F2.8, so I get the F2.8 non-IS...another mistake...I really needed IS, so finally I got the IS version and never regreted it.

 

The IS version is a little longer then the F4, fatter, and of course heavier, but we're not talking LOTS heavier.

 

Lose the tripod and get the IS....and relax, the non-IS is very, very slightly more sharper...miniscule, to be sure.

 

Oh, and yes, I think the IS version is very much worth it.

[daniel_taylor]

(Your title says 300, but then you discuss the 70-200; I assume you're asking about the 300.)

 

The 300 f/4L IS is one of the best performing lenses in Canon's lineup. Is the non-IS a bit sharper? Yes, but you're still talking about two lenses at the top of the list. You would have to be looking for the difference in a controlled test to find it. (Note that Photodo.com seemed to get a bad copy. Their rating is well below the actual performance of this lens and Canon's MTF chart for it, just in case that's what's stearing you towards the non-IS.)

 

The 300 f/4L IS is new with warranty and the IS is worth it on this lens. I would go for the IS version.

[vorlandphotography]

The f/2.8 IS is the most expensive lens I ever purchased ... no regrets whatsoever. The image quality is, well, almost magical at times. And being able to shoot it hand held much of time, thanks to the IS ... wow. Go for it!

[eric_chi1]

For what I remembered: the 300 f4 IS has a MFD of 4.9 feet. And the old 300 f4 is about 8 feet. That should make your decision easier.

 

Eric.

[John Crowe]

How often does one pull out a 300mm lens to photograph something 4 to 8 feet away?

 

 

When I need a tripod, I really need a tripod and IS is not going to help much at 1/2 to 4 seconds. It really depends on how often you get stuck with the wrong film or the wrong light. When I shoot film I plan for the lighting and switch mid-roll if absolutely necessary. If you don't want to pre-plan and you want maximum flexibility then go with the IS.

 

 

For what I shoot I'd opt for the non-IS and 1.4x.

[jim_larson1]

Well. . . .castleman (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/index.htm) also seems to think the 300/4L is superior to the 300/4L-IS. I have also heard this from others.

 

But even in the Castleman review. . .he finds the performance differences even compared to the stellar 300/2.8L-IS academic, and only apparent on a 1Ds. (not apparent on a 10D)

 

Note that the 300/4L-IS *with 1.4TC* blows the doors off the 100-400/5.6L-IS at the long end.

 

. . .and given that the 300/4L-IS *new* is only $300 or so more than the 300/4L (non-IS) *used*. . . .I think selection of the IS version is a no brainer. The sheer weight of this class of lens demands IS.

 

Now. . .as to the 70-200 choices. . .I have the 4L, and have absolutely no desire to downgrade to either the 2.8L or 2.8L-IS options :)

[daniel_taylor]

"When I need a tripod, I really need a tripod and IS is not going to help much at 1/2 to 4 seconds."

 

One of the great uses of the 300 f/4L is hand-held sports photography, where IS is huge.

[eric_chi1]

"How often does one pull out a 300mm lens to photograph something 4 to 8 feet away?"

 

You probably should search the web to find more info and images from 300 f4 IS. Canon even marked the word "macro" on it. It's a great lens for butterflies, flowers, and near by birds with great boken due to this MFD. Many buy this lens just for this.

 

Eric.

[John Crowe]

IS for sports photography is also not "required" since you have to shoot at high shutter speeds anyway to stop action. If you really have to justify an IS lens for sports it is for panning high speed subjects but again this can be mastered without IS. IS is for those times when you just do not have enough light to stop the motion of the lens and you do not want to use a tripod, assuming of course that you do have enough light to stop the motion of the lens with IS on.

 

 

For the price of the IS option on a 300/4 IS you could buy a real macro lens!

[ifeito]

I recently bought the 300 f/4 IS. I do not perceive the image quality to be lacking in any respect to the image quality of my 70-200 f/4. The 3.4 rating on photodo seems odd if you look at the MTF chart on Canon's site.

 

I have never used or seen the non IS version of this lens, and I agree that given the many reviews it may be a tad sharper than the IS version, but for real life photography I don't think it can get much better than what the IS lens delivers. Yes, there's always f/2.8, but we're discussing lenses for mortals here.

 

Ignacio

[ilkka_nissila]

Canon's MTF charts are simulated, not measured.

[daniel_taylor]

"IS for sports photography is also not "required" since you have to shoot at high shutter speeds anyway to stop action."

 

Experience has taught me otherwise. Camera shake can negatively impact images even at high shutter speeds, especially at the end of a long day of shooting. If you're shooting in light that demands 1/500 - 1/1500 at f/4 and your camera shake happens to move against the direction of the target you're trying to freeze, you've dramatically increased the "speed" of that target from the pov of the sensor, and you *will* get motion blur.

 

"If you really have to justify an IS lens for sports it is for panning high speed subjects but again this can be mastered without IS. IS is for those times when you just do not have enough light to stop the motion of the lens and you do not want to use a tripod, assuming of course that you do have enough light to stop the motion of the lens with IS on."

 

At 300mm IS is for anytime you are not on a tripod. Yeah, you can squeeze off "one off" 300mm shots at higher shutter speeds. Try keeping that up, frame after frame, at the end of a long day, with your body movements not affecting a shot, especially when the good ones have to go 16x20. Doesn't happen.

 

"For the price of the IS option on a 300/4 IS you could buy a real macro lens!"

 

Never the less, if you're interested in close up photography (not quite true macro), this lens does very well.

 

And I still can't see grabbing a used one vs. new with warranty for the price difference we're discussing. This is a fairly expensive piece of glass. If something is off or out of alignment on a warranty model, you send it back to Canon for repair. What do you do used?

 

Just order the IS new and be done with it. The first time you look through the viewfinder and see just how much shake occurs at that magnification, then press the shutter half way and see the frame freeze, you'll know it was worth it.

[matt_sallis]

IS is the single most important advance in telephoto lenses for a long, long time.

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, 300mm f2.8 IS, and the 600mm f4 IS.

I would never go back to using non-IS telephoto lenses now.

 

If the lens moves just 1 pixel whilst taking the shot, then you have lost information.

Anything that can help reduce camera shake simply cannot be dismissed, and I think it would be a crazy decision to not get the IS version if you can afford it.

[andrew robertson]

"Canon's MTF charts are simulated, not measured."

 

So are almost every other brand's MTF charts.

[mark_chappell]

<I>So are almost every other brand's MTF charts.</i><P>

 

Which is why they are of dubious value. The only MTF charts I'd put any stake in is are those

derived directly from measurements, not theory.

[andrew robertson]

As long as the theoretical measurements are all derived using the same methods, you

should be able to compare derived MTFs of Canon lenses and use that information.

[mark_chappell]

<I>As long as the theoretical measurements are all derived using the same methods, you

should be able to compare derived MTFs of Canon lenses and use that information.</i><P>

 

If you assume that construction tolerances, QC, etc. are identical, which you can't. A

calculated MTF <I>might</i> give an indication of the best possible theoretical performance

given perfect construction, but realized performance may be quite different.

[andrew robertson]

I think you're working under the possibly flawed assumption that most Canon lenses are

built so shoddily that they significantly deviate from the calculated MTF graphs, to the point

that each lens gives completely random performance completely unrelated to its calculated

MTF. In reality, tolerances are pretty tight in a modern optical plant, and modern lenses are

designed to perform at a given level, despite manufacturing tolerances.

[mark_chappell]

<I>I think you're working under the possibly flawed assumption that most Canon lenses

are built so shoddily that they significantly deviate from the calculated MTF graphs, to the

point that each lens gives completely random performance completely unrelated to its

calculated MTF.</i><P>

 

A wild distortion of what I said, at best. But yes, evidence suggests that production

lenses can and do deviate substantially from calculated MTF graphs: the numerous user

comments in this and other forums on such lenses as the 100-400, 17-40, etc. indicate

substantial sample variation -- some who own these lenses report very high image quality,

others report much worse performance. Another example, directly relevant to this thread,

is the now-notorious test report of poor performance in the 300/4 IS in... was it

<I>Photodo

</i>?, a more recent and more favorable review, plus various threads comparing the

'original' and IS versions -- all of which indicate substantial sample-to-sample variation.

[andrew robertson]

I tend to think that a manufacturer generally knows more than random internet denizens,

and have never had an experience with a Canon lens that directly contradicts the MTF

charts. I have had experiences which support the MTF charts and directly contradict users

quite often, such as my 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 being sharper across the field than the 17-40L or

16-35L.

[mark_chappell]

<I>I tend to think that a manufacturer generally knows more than random internet denizens,

and have never had an experience with a Canon lens that directly contradicts the MTF charts.

I have had experiences which support the MTF charts and directly contradict users quite

often, such as my 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 being sharper across the field than the 17-40L or

16-35L.</i><P>

 

Which is about as statistically valid as deciding that fatal car accidents never occur because

you, personally, have never have been killed in a car crash.